Talk:Skopje/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Well-written
According to the Manual of Style (lead section) "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects."

I think that lede is meets this criteria. Layout of the article meets Manual of Style (layout) criteria. There are no words to watch in the article. The article meets the requests of Manual of Style (embedded lists).

Factually accurate and verifiable
The article provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout.

The article provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.

The article contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage
This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. I believe that this article is broad in its coverage enough to meet requirement for GA, but with significant potential for improvement on FA level which is not utilized yet.

The article stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail, although there is a place for improvement. According to Manual of Style (summary style): "The text of any article consists of a sequence of related but distinct subtopics." I believe that article about Skopje can not be short, but User:LibStar had some point when he proposed to "consider splitting content into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject." The articles about Rome, Jerusalem, Moscow, Paris, Athens, ... do not contain a list of churches. Still, it is not something that changes my opinion that the article basically stays focused on the topic.

Neutral
The article represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Stable
The article does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated
The article is illustrated with images that are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. The images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

According to this recommendations "If the problems are minor or easy to fix, the reviewer can simply fix them, or the article can be put "on hold" for a week or so to give the regular editors at an article time to consider the reviewer's suggestions." I personally fixed a couple of minor problems (few links to disamb. pages, dead links and obvious mistakes in chronology). The regular editors placed additional efforts and actively participated in considering not only the reviewer's suggestions, but also the suggestions of the previous reviewers (substantial copy editing was performed) of the article and suggestions they brought out themselves.

I find this article meets good article criteria.

Reviewer: Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)